Students share their thoughts on their mooting experiences this year
As this year’s competitive mooting season comes to a close, participants and coaches may reflect on the long and exciting journey in which they engaged. This year was particularly special, as for many competitors it meant a return to in-person mooting after years of virtual moots during the COVID-19 pandemic. As usual, Ultra Vires sent out a survey to ask for feedback and comments on the mooting process. Around 20 students responded to our survey.
The Moot Court Committee (MCC) explained that the organization and administration of the moots are split between the MCC and the Faculty. The Faculty is responsible for the requirements and prerequisites of moots, registering competitors, and finding faculty advisors. On the other hand, the MCC, a student-run body, is in charge of organizing and running moot tryouts within the Faculty’s parameters, finding student coaches, and coordinating the 1L moots and trial advocacy, as well as organizing the Grand Moot.
The first question posed in the survey asked for students’ thoughts on the timing of the moot tryouts. Overall, the responses were generally good. Upper-years appreciated that the tryouts happened early in the semester before classes ramped up. Some still wished there was more time to prepare for the problem before the actual tryout though; the MCC noted in a comment to Ultra Vires that sign-ups and the initial information session are made available on the first day of school, and moving the information session any earlier is not feasible. One suggestion was to distribute a recording of the moot information session earlier on for those who are interested. Another common complaint was that phone callbacks were quite stressful and perhaps a different process should be explored.
There was a dichotomy in opinion on the moot tryout process itself. A few responses indicated the process was “fair” and they “wouldn’t have changed anything.” On the other hand, the majority of responses indicated the process itself was too short, especially considering that there were two rounds of tryouts. The two rounds also seemed dubious, considering that only about five students were eliminated on the first day.
Many also thought the mooting process was a lot to handle for those who have never mooted. Many expressed that they were completely clueless and confused, and that the whole process seemed to be geared toward those who had moot experience. The general sentiment for these students was that they wished there was more specific instruction on how to prepare for the moot tryout. Fortunately, substantively, the tryout material length and overall fairness of the actual tryouts weren’t particularly contentious this year.
There was another mixed bag of answers for how well-informed mooters felt for their particular moot competitions. This is probably due to the individual variance between the different competitions. For example, the Arnup Cup had good access to information, as it was mentioned often in the Trial Advocacy class prior to tryouts. On the other hand, others expressed that they “knew literally nothing about [their moot].” Some individuals felt like they were missing information on the actual workload and on how particular deadlines worked with their moot. One suggestion was to have a database where basic information could be found regarding “rough dates for factums/competitions, subject area, number of schools participating, external advisors, [and] past year results so we know if it’s going to be a lot of work.”
Most survey participants did not mind the timing of their moot competition. Of course, dates vary for each moot. As a result, some complained that it was too late in the semester, leaving them behind for exam preparation, while others complained the opposite, that it was too early, forcing them to work during the winter holidays. However, it is clear that this would be a difficult problem to rectify, due to the number of moots and the busy schedules that law students inevitably have.
Mooting coaches were universally well-received. Students really appreciated that coaches were “helpful,” “very kind,” and “awesome.” Participants recognized mooting coaches were taking their own time to do this for the most part, and were grateful for the coaching, preparing, and scheduling that had to be done for each moot competition. Special shout out to all the student coaches who helped out!
Most participants stressed the significant workload that comes with a competitive moot, particularly for run-throughs in advance of the competition’s oral portion. Most significantly, in January and February, time commitments were varied but high, ranging from 10–20 hours per week. Students felt that this did not align with the credit allocation each moot received (3–4 credits for the full year) and that it was difficult to catch up on school work once the mooting season ended in March. With that being said, some students acknowledged that they were “only as busy as [they] care[d] to be”, and that, since the competitions are ungraded, students may choose how much work they wish to invest into their competition.
For student coaches, the workload can be equally demanding, with the need to support factum writing and attend practices throughout much of the year. One former coach expressed particular frustration that coaches do not receive credit unless they complete additional work on top of their support for their mooters. The MCC noted that this was not a concern that had been shared with them previously, and they encouraged concerned students to raise it with the Faculty in the future.
Overall, while students did raise significant concerns about the steep learning curve involved in the tryout process and the strenuous workload, they were quick to note the wide range of positive experiences involved in mooting. Commenters highlighted the unique value of mooting as an opportunity to engage in oral advocacy at a young age and connect with other law students across the country who are also interested in litigation, arbitration, and negotiation. What is clear from this year’s reflections is that there is nothing quite like mooting in the U of T Law student experience.
